+ обсуждение и ответы на вопросы на другом сайте
Team Fortress 2 has started multiple discussion on community sites about the rules for the games. Most of the discussion is around the amount of players, where the scene is clearly divided to 6vs6 -fans and 8vs8 -fans. Also class limits, specially about medic, is dividing the scene.
I asked from three different persons about their personal opinions. First we have old school player from Finland, who have played TF for over 10 years in clans like cVH and Zoo.
Ok it's dead for real this time
Remember how they used to say ”Team Fortress is dead” back when QWTF first started doing bad at the servers? And then again with TFC? Q3F? ETF? Like most pessimists, these people called themselves ”realists”. Looking at the individual games the pessimists got it right every time, but as far as Team Fortress as a whole goes, they got it wrong. Eventually there will be realists saying the same thing about TF2. They will, of course, be right once again, that's inevitable. What we can change is when this happens.
Since every TF game to date has died out sooner rather than later, the history of TF can be seen in two ways: as a series of more or less good games built on a flawed idea or a series of more or less flawed games built on a good idea. Because the TF games just keep on coming after all these years (and failures!) I would be inclined to believe the latter. Who would build a game on an idea they believe to be flawed to begin with? Nobody. Certainly not anybody with commercial interests, anyway.
The question, then, becomes one of cause. Why do gaming communities die out? The obvious answer is that people lose interest in the game. When people lose interest in something the first question should always be ”what changed”? In the 1990's, Major League Baseball was less popular than ever before. When people were asked why they would say ”baseball is boring”. But baseball had always been the same. So if was boring then it was boring 20, 30 or 50 years ago. So what changed about the game that made people lose interest? In the case of TF and baseball the answer is the same: not much. Maybe the real question is ”what needs to change that will keep the game interesting for longer”.
Often when people talk about popularity and FPS games they will, at one point or another, bring up Counter Strike. And for good reason. Counter Strike represents the ”realistic armed combat” game type, akin to games like Action Quake. As far as that game type goes, Counter Strike just absolutely nailed it. They got that game type right down to a T, and it really shows. Like the game or not, the CS scene is actually fighting tooth and nail against CS:S while we're excitedly ushering in Yet Another TF Game. And don't fool yourself, that's what this is. Nothing has changed.
The high hopes that we have placed on TF2 are not completely baseless. The game is distributed through Steam alongside CS and CS:S so their popularity is sure to rub off to some extent. The servers will be full with new players marveling at the ingenious mechanics of Team Fortress, experiencing the joy of true teamwork, fragging, capping and generally having the time of their life. It's very likely that TF2 will initially enjoy massive popularity. I don't know how many of you are familiar with a game called ETF, but what I've just said was true for ETF as well (for a while). ETF died off almost completely in under 6 months. Now, i'm not saying that TF2 will be dead and buried in 6 months. The massive hype around this game would carry online tic-tac-toe for 6 months. What i am saying is that this is a TF game, and these games are notorious for failing (again, i'm using games like CS as a yardstick of failure here).
Why do games fail? Why do game communities who are filled with people once so rabidly enthusiastic about a game dwindle and disappear? The simplest explanation (which, more often than not, is also the correct one) is that the game gets boring. Since I claimed earlier that the never ending stream of TF games suggests the idea behind the game is good, these games must have something else in common that makes them boring after a while. For arguments sake, I will try to outline 3 such things, the two first ones being a direct result of the third.
The first thing is round length. The typical round of TF takes anywhere between 10 and 30 minutes (and I'm being generous here, because traditionally it's 30 + warm up). Most things in this world get pretty boring after 15 minutes. Kids these days have the attention span of a sparrow on meth and games like Counter Strike (yes, again) capitalize on that. Rounds are quick, everything is fresh and new every couple of minutes, you buy guns between rounds, you stay involved all the time, and before you know it you've been playing for 1,5 hours straight. Now imagine the engineer playing defence in 2fort5 seeing the enemy twice per 30 minute round.
The second thing is team size. In TF you usually play with 8-12 people per team. Back in the day it was 10-12 and now it's usually 8. News flash: getting 8 people in one place at one time with 2 x 30 minutes to spare is not easy. Because of this, you have to arrange matches a week in advance and the people in charge have to bust their ass making sure everyone gets there at go time. It's infinitely easier to arrange a 4 on 4 match. How many of you could find 3 guys to play with you at any given time? Yeah, me too. How many of you could find 7? Now that's a lot harder. I believe the happy medium is something like 6 players per team. This strikes a balance with making matches possible to arrange without developing an ulcer and not losing the spirit of TF in the process.
On to the third thing, which is the root of all evil. Map design. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the TF2 map list. 2Forts. Dustbowl. That one map whose name I forget but I like to call ”Hide The FPS”. Rehashed versions of old TF maps and maps the size of JFK airport do not make for an interesting, fast paced game. There have been numerous examples of innovative map design in other games recently; UT2004 had the Assault game mode which was nothing short of genious and it's a damn shame it was in the wrong game. RTCW and Enemy Territory had the stopwatch system which was innovative and fun. TF2 has some good and novel ideas too, like the capture point -oriented remake of Well but it's simply not enough. It's up to the community mappers to take this game and make it the Team Fortress game it was supposed to be; the one that lives on and gets better with time, not just older. - menth0l
As next writer I have player who have played lots of different games from the realms of Azeroth to dusty streets of Dawnville and beyond. He has good knowledge of games and also have played games in highest possible level. He knows his business.
Why is 8v8 so much better than 6v6? Do you want a cup of tea with that boredom?
There is no simple answer to that, it’s a compilation of things needed for a game to be fun and competitive. First, I would like to point out that so far most of the maps released with this beta are pretty large. Large maps support large team sizes…
Lets take for example ctf_2fort, the only map that resembles its original version, from QWTF.
I have played it both 8v8 and 6v6, and I have to say I will not play it 6v6 ever again. Most teams use 50/50 what comes to attacking and defense. That's 3 guys attacking, and most of the time 1-2 players are dead and waiting for a respawn. Try playing a defensive engineer in the flag room, seeing one enemy every 10 minutes is a blast. I'm not sure whether this game is supposed to be boring in the first place but with current spawn times and 6v6, welcome to BOREFEST.
Most people say that in maps like cp_granary and cp_well 6v6 rocks. I can't say its unplayable, but if you look around you can see that there is space to be filled. Try those maps 8v8, you might be surprised how fun it is. A lot more action for everyone and a lot more team play is needed when player amount grows by just 2. Not to forget the diversity of tactics that comes to play. Only thing really sucking at 8v8 at the moment is friendly fire cvar. More people around, easier to just spam the hell out of opponent team, but I have confidence in Valve that they will bring friendly fire back as it was, it's a core element of this game.
Maybe the main thing that separates Team Fortress from all the other fps-games out there, is that it has a variety of classes to play with that differ a lot from each other. There are 9 classes in the game, so even if
every player plays a different class, there would be 3 classes left out in 6v6. And most of the time its 2 soldiers, 2 medics and 2 randoms, that would leave 5 classes unplayed. Did Valve had this in mind when they designed the game? I doubt it.
The question is, do we really want to turn this game into a new counter-strike? 6v6 is like playing chess, you just wait for your opponent to make a move and then act. The only real argument made for the sake of 6v6 is that it requires more individual skill. Well 8v8 requires more teamwork. Pick which one you like. Also speaking on behalf of 6v6 would be potential LANs and tournaments, which are of course easier from organizers point of view when team sizes are smaller, but that’s something most of us don’t even have to worry about, since it’s only the ‘cream of the cake’ who play professionally enough to get sponsors and attend LANs.
What comes to class balance, I don't think any class is overpowered at the moment. Everyone whines about medics which is ridiculous, try playing with your whole team as medics, you can't win shit. End of discussion.
But seriously speaking, in North America they are using a limit that no more than 2 of any class is allowed at one time. In 6v6. That sounds fair and reasonable IF we really need to have limits at all.
Simply put, I suggest every team to test different class setups and team sizes. Find out what is the most fun for you and post your opinions please.
P.S. A recent poll on
www.tf2.fi forums showed what I was hoping for – 30 out of 32 voters voted for 8v8. -bnz
Last writer is a project manager from University of Tampere where he studies games and gaming. He really goes into details on his article.
Team Fortress 2: Class Limits and Player Numbers
By Rojola
Gameplay balance and rules are often discussed in multiplayer game communities. In this article, I will discuss about the two issues that have come up lately in the Finnish Team Fortress 2 community. The first one is about class limits in clan style matches, and to be more precise, the discussion has mainly revolved around the question of how many medics should be allowed per team. The second one is the standard number of players per team in a clan style match. Both issues can be set as research questions for this article:
Should there be class limits in clan style matches and if so, how many medics should be allowed per team?
What should be the standard number of players per team in a clan style match?
In this paper I will try to offer perspectives to these questions while discussing about the pros and conns of different solutions.
We can start the discussion by saying that a perfect game does not need balancing. However, class based multiplayer games are rarely perfect. We can assume that TF2 is not a perfect class based multiplayer game as Valve has released the game as a beta for small number of people, and they are tweaking the game (presumably) based on the user feedback. This brings us the first issue to consider, which relates to question number one. As the game is still beta and Valve is gathering user feedback and tweaking the game, it is unfruitful to discuss about the possible class limitations as the game will probably change more or less. Actually, Valve already took action and made changes to the demoman class. If there would be evidence that the game will be left “as is”, then the class limit discussion might be more useful.
Other issue that relates to question number one is the maturity of the game. TF2 was released as a beta only few weeks ago and strategies (what is our setup?) and tactics (how will our setup play?) seem to change game-by-game basis. As people are just getting to know the game and its possibilities, it would be silly to assume that someone would already have the definite knowledge to base their arguments on why class limits would be a good thing at this point.
Of course, we could “adapt on the fly” and make some community based temporary rules for the gameplay. However, these rules would probably just split the community in two and there is the possibility of “old habits die hard” syndrome, where the original flaw in the game is fixed eventually by the developers, but the community is reluctant to change its ways. This underlines my thoughts about setting any kind gameplay limits in the first place. Only when there is the absolute must to limit something, it should be done, but still with caution. In TF2 case, there is no absolute must at this point and certainly there is not enough knowledge to say if such absolute must even exists. In Team Fortress Classic for example, the HWG class was limited to one per team by the community and the reason was that the whole community saw HWG as overpowered and Valve didn’t really support the game anymore. However, when the restriction on HWG took place, the game had already been played for good 5 years.
For TF2, the class limit discussion has been mainly revolved around the medic. So what is so good (or bad) in the medic anyway? I have seen mainly two arguments. First argument is that the medic combos (medic and soldier/HWG) are overpowered and the second argument is that medic is boring to play. The first argument holds water if we compare single soldier deathwatch a soldier that is healed by the medic. For most cases, the soldier with medic would win the duel. However, for every medic you put in the field, you have to tie him up with one heavier class. This means less maneurable and versatile team as they have to move as one for being effective. What about when soldier and medic are facing two soldiers at the same time? When opponents come one by one, it is an easy task for the soldier and medic to take them out, but when there are two or more opponents at the same time, it’s getting harder. Also, I haven’t yet seen a successful team who would have half of their players as medics (of course, the maturity of the game argument works against me now). However, players are getting better and better to kill medics, so my guess is that the medic limit issue will be dealt in a natural way. Clans will realize that there is no use to tie up too many heavy classes with medics, as the medics are getting killed rather easily. We have only scratched the surface of TF2 clan style gameplay, so making up class limits would be an unwise move at this point.
The second issue, that medic is boring to play, holds water much better. I’ve experienced this too when I have played as medic. There is no similar feeling of individual success like with the other classes (I have played mainly soldier, heavy and demoman besides medic). I mean, all you did was run behind your partner, dodged bullets and kept your fire button down. At some point, your partner probably told you to hit up the ubercharge. However, although I am not a fan to play medic, someone else might enjoy that role very much. My most memorable moments with medic were when I fragged someone with syringe gun or bonesaw, not when I was ubercharging my partner and saw him hitting a critical rocket on the opponent.
The argument about medic combos being overpowered is not valid or at least there are no such signs yet. This will be seen in the future as the gameplay matures and Valve makes the final tweaking's based on the beta feedback. The boredom argument might be accurate, but it is much more into individual’s preference on gameplay experience than on something that could be explicitly shown and verify (like some class being overpowered). However, medic limit might be reasonable if there is a clear mutual agreement that the class is boring to play and clans use medics just because they are effective, but not very fun to play.
The second issue in this paper is the standard number of players per each team in a clan style match. Based on the discussion, there are two clear candidates; 6v6 and 8v8.
I think that traditionally the 8v8 has been more common in TF games (QWTF, TFC, Q3F and ETF) than 6v6. This means that there is already the “tried and true” TF gaming culture behind the 8v8 option. TF2, like the earlier versions, features 9 classes so 8v8 setup covers the classes better than 6v6. There is also somewhat popular Highlander style play with 9v9 setup with class limit of 1 for every class.
8v8 is more tolerant to drop outs than 6v6. In an 8v8 game, if one player is dropped, the shorthanded team might have some chances to hold-off the opponent. If a player drops in a 6v6 game, shorthanded team will surely be in greater trouble. Of course there is the sportmanship option to idle when a player drops but I have never supported that thinking purely because players are on the server to play, not to idle. Hence I have never asked the other team to idle if we have dropped a player (but I’ve received loads of whine when we haven’t idled). The following argument is pretty cheap shot but it is still true; the more the merrier. TF is all about fast gameplay with chaotic action going on and I think this hasn’t changed in TF2 although the game is somewhat slower paced than its predecessors. Maps by default are large and seem to fit better with 8v8 play than 6v6.
6v6 would be favored only by two reasons I think. First reason is that some people want to emphasize the factor of individual skill. However, unlike some other multiplayer games, TF concept has never been based on individual skill over good teamwork. There is the old saying that there is no “I” in Team Fortress. Besides, why individual skill would not be shown in 8v8 gameplay? Of course, it might be harder to show off individual skill in 8v8 but I think that is only a good thing as it is clearly a gameplay challenge rather than a restriction. The other reason for favoring 6v6 is that some Counter-Strike (or other games with 5v5 as standard setup) clans that are going to play TF2, might not have enough people for 8v8 matches and therefore they would prefer 6v6. This reasoning is trivial however as CS is totally different game and there is no good reason why 6v6 would be more enjoyable than 8v8. The “it is too spammy” card is out of the question as TF2 does not feature grenades like its predecessors did. Also, recruiting new players is not that hard really.
As a summary, it is clear that the game and the gameplay will evolve so there is no real need for any kind of class restrictions yet. There are no explicit signs that medic combos would be overpowered in the game. There is also no indication why 6v6 should be favored over 8v8 that has been more or less the standard in TF games before. For now, everyone should just play the game with different setups, different strategies and have fun. When there is a clear indication that the game is not fun anymore, then either Valve or the community should take action by tweaking the game or setting up additional rules for clan style play to make it fun again. -Rojola
On this article you have had it all. You have been given good points why the game should be played as 6vs6, you have read valid reasons for 8vs8. Now it is your time to give your thought how this game should be played.